A huge, detailed report was released today -- or at least hit my feed today, by the Open Society Justice Initiative in some of the most detailed research on the secret detention of prisoners in "black sites," as well as extraordinary renditions that allowed prisoners to be tortured.

The CIA is heavily indicted for enabling and expanding this entire program, especially in the years following 9/11. But 54 other countries are also thrown into the mix, in what's turning out to be a pretty tough read on what our planet's nations resort to when they think cutting legal corners makes more sense than the rule of law.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency embarked on a highly classified program of secret detention and extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects. The program was designed to place detainee interrogations beyond the reach of law. Suspected terrorists were seized and secretly flown across national borders to be interrogated by foreign governments that used torture, or by the CIA itself in clandestine “black sites” using torture techniques.

Globalizing Torture is the most comprehensive account yet assembled of the human rights abuses associated with CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations. It details for the first time what was done to the 136 known victims, and lists the 54 foreign governments that participated in these operations. It shows that responsibility for the abuses lies not only with the United States but with dozens of foreign governments that were complicit.

More than 10 years after the 2001 attacks, Globalizing Torture makes it unequivocally clear that the time has come for the United States and its partners to definitively repudiate these illegal practices and secure accountability for the associated human rights abuses.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) commenced a secret detention program under which suspected
terrorists were held in CIA prisons, also known as “black sites,” outside the United
States, where they were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques” that
involved torture and other abuse. At about the same time, the CIA gained expansive
authority to engage in “extraordinary rendition,” defined here as the transfer—
without legal process—of a detainee to the custody of a foreign government for
purposes of detention and interrogation.2 Both the secret detention program and
the extraordinary rendition program were highly classified, conducted outside
the United States, and designed to place detainee interrogations beyond the
reach of the law. Torture was a hallmark of both. The two programs entailed the
abduction and disappearance of detainees and their extra-legal transfer on secret
flights to undisclosed locations around the world, followed by their incommunicado
detention, interrogation, torture, and abuse. The administration of President George
W. Bush embraced the “dark side,” a new paradigm for countering terrorism with
little regard for the constraints of domestic and international law.

Today, more than a decade after September 11, there is no doubt that highranking
Bush administration officials bear responsibility for authorizing human
rights violations associated with secret detention and extraordinary rendition,
and the impunity that they have enjoyed to date remains a matter of significant
concern. But responsibility for these violations does not end with the United
States. Secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations, designed to be
conducted outside the United States under cover of secrecy, could not have been
implemented without the active participation of foreign governments. These
governments too must be held accountable.

However, to date, the full scale and scope of foreign government participation—as
well as the number of victims—remains unknown, largely because of the extreme
secrecy maintained by the United States and its partner governments. The U.S.
government has refused to publicly and meaningfully acknowledge its involvement
in any particular case of extraordinary rendition or disclose the locations of secret
overseas CIA detention facilities.

Quote:

The report also shows that as many as 54 foreign governments reportedly
participated in these operations in various ways, including by hosting CIA prisons on
their territories; detaining, interrogating, torturing, and abusing individuals; assisting
in the capture and transport of detainees; permitting the use of domestic airspace
and airports for secret flights transporting detainees; providing intelligence leading
to the secret detention and extraordinary rendition of individuals; and interrogating
individuals who were secretly being held in the custody of other governments.
Foreign governments also failed to protect detainees from secret detention and
extraordinary rendition on their territories and to conduct effective investigations
into agencies and officials who participated in these operations. The 54 governments
identified in this report span the continents of Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and
North America, and include: Afghanistan3, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria,
Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Hong Kong,4 Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Libya,
Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden,
Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen,
and Zimbabwe.

By engaging in torture and other abuses associated with secret detention and
extraordinary rendition, the U.S. government violated domestic and international
law, thereby diminishing its moral standing and eroding support for its
counterterrorism efforts worldwide as these abuses came to light. By enlisting
the participation of dozens of foreign governments in these violations, the United
States further undermined longstanding human rights protections enshrined in
international law—including, in particular, the norm against torture.

Quote:

Indeed, numerous professional U.S. interrogators have confirmed
that torture does not produce reliable intelligence, and that rapport-building
techniques are far more effective at eliciting such intelligence. A telling example
of the disastrous consequences of extraordinary rendition operations can be
seen in the case of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, documented in this report. After being
extraordinarily rendered by the United States to Egypt in 2002, al-Libi, under
threat of torture at the hands of Egyptian officials, fabricated information relating
to Iraq’s provision of chemical and biological weapons training to Al Qaeda. In
2003, then Secretary of State Colin Powell relied on this fabricated information in
his speech to the United Nations that made the case for war against Iraq.

Quote:

Moreover, it appears that the Obama administration did not end extraordinary
rendition, choosing to rely on anti-torture diplomatic assurances from recipient
countries and post-transfer monitoring of detainee treatment. As demonstrated
in the cases of Maher Arar, who was tortured in Syria, and Ahmed Agiza and
Muhammed al-Zery, who were tortured in Egypt, diplomatic assurances and posttransfer
monitoring are not effective safeguards against torture. Soon after taking
office in 2009, President Obama did issue an executive order that disavowed
torture, ordered the closure of secret CIA detention facilities, and established
an interagency task force to review interrogation and transfer policies and issue
recommendations on “the practices of transferring individuals to other nations.”
But the executive order did not repudiate extraordinary rendition, and was
crafted to preserve the CIA’s authority to detain terrorist suspects on a shortterm
transitory basis prior to rendering them to another country for interrogation
or trial. Moreover, the interagency task force report, which was issued in 2009,
continues to be withheld from the public. The administration also continues to
withhold documents relating to CIA Office of Inspector General investigations
into extraordinary rendition and secret detention.

In addition, recent reports of secret detention by or with the involvement of the CIA
or other U.S. agencies remain a source of significant concern. These include reports
of a secret prison in Somalia run with CIA involvement, secret Defense Department
detention facilities in Afghanistan where detainees were abused, and the twomonth
long secret detention of a terrorist suspect aboard a U.S. Navy ship.

Quote:

In the face of this trend, the time has come for the United States and its partner
governments to own up to their responsibility for secret detention and extraordinary
rendition operations. If they do not seize this opportunity, chances are that the truth
will emerge by other means to embarrass them. The taint of torture associated with
secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations will continue to cling to
the United States and its partner governments as long as they fail to air the truth
and hold their officials accountable. The impunity currently enjoyed by responsible
parties also paves the way for future abuses in counterterrorism operations.

2. Cease reliance on “diplomatic assurances” against torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as a basis for transferring
individuals to foreign countries.

3. Reaffirm and extend the commitment set forth in Executive Order 13491
to close secret CIA detention facilities by prohibiting secret detention—
including short-term secret detention—by or with the involvement of any
U.S. federal agency.

4. Disclose information relating to human rights violations associated with
secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations, including but not
limited to the identities of all individuals subjected to these operations,
along with available information on their detention and treatment, current
whereabouts, and diplomatic assurances secured in particular cases. The
U.S. administration and senate should work to declassify, to the maximum
extent possible, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on
CIA detention and interrogation.

5. Conduct an effective and thorough criminal investigation into human
rights abuses associated with CIA secret detention and extraordinary
rendition operations (including into abuses that had been authorized by
the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice), with a view
to examining the role of, and holding legally accountable, officials who
authorized, ordered, assisted, or otherwise participated in these abuses.

6. Create an independent, non-partisan commission (with authority to access
all relevant documents, subpoena witnesses, and make its concluding
report public) to investigate human rights abuses associated with CIA
secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations (including into
abuses that had been authorized by the Office of Legal Counsel), with
a view to examining, and publicly disclosing, the role of officials who
authorized, ordered, assisted, or otherwise participated in these abuses.

8. Publicly disclose the report and recommendations of the Special Task
Force on Interrogations and Transfer Policies (created pursuant to
Executive Order 13491 in January 2009 to issue recommendations
for ensuring that these policies comply with U.S. domestic laws and
international obligations) along with descriptions of measures taken to
implement the recommendations, so that the public may be able to
assess whether policies were revised and adequate safeguards instituted
against torture and other abuses associated with CIA secret detention and
extraordinary rendition operations.

9. Institute safeguards for ensuring that future joint counterterrorism
operations do not run afoul of human rights standards, including by
making participation in such operations contingent on compliance of all
participating governments with human rights standards.

By 2005, the United States had reportedly extraordinarily rendered 100 to 150 suspects
to foreign countries.35 Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state at the time, defended
rendition “as a vital tool in combating terrorism.”36 She did not mention
that after September 11, 2001, the rendition program was radically expanded to
allow transfers of detainees to foreign governments solely for the purpose of detention
and interrogation, including to governments known to employ torture. She did
state that “where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred
persons will not be tortured.”37 However, CIA Director Porter Goss virtually admitted
in congressional testimony that such assurances were of little use, observing
that “[w]e have a responsibility of trying to ensure that they are properly treated,
and we try and do the best we can to guarantee that. But of course once they’re out
of our control, there’s only so much we can do.”38 Extraordinary rendition victims
were tortured despite assurances provided by recipient governments.

Black sites:

Quote:

On September 17, 2001, President Bush authorized the CIA to operate a secret
detention program under which suspected terrorists were secretly transported to
be held incommunicado in CIA prisons (known as black sites) outside the United
States, where they were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques” that involved torture and abuse.44 As noted above, although there is a conceptual distinction
between secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations, there is little
practical difference: both entailed the abduction and disappearance of detainees,
their extra-legal transfer on secret flights to undisclosed locations around the world,
followed by their incommunicado detention, interrogation, torture, and abuse.45

Quote:

The CIA secretly held its detainees in Afghanistan, Lithuania, Morocco, Poland,
Romania, Thailand, and Guantánamo Bay.

These techniques included abusive methods such as “walling” (quickly pulling
the detainee forward and then thrusting him against a flexible false wall), “water
dousing,” “stress positions” (forcing the detainee to remain in body positions
designed to induce physical discomfort), “wall standing” (forcing the detainee
to remain standing with his arms outstretched in front of him so that his fingers
touch a wall four to five feet away and support his entire body weight), “cramped
confinement” in a box, “insult slaps,” (slapping the detainee on the face with fingers
spread), “facial hold” (holding a detainee’s head temporarily immobile during
interrogation with palms on either side of the face), “attention grasp” (grasping
the detainee with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening,
and quickly drawing him toward the interrogator), forced nudity, sleep deprivation
while being vertically shackled, and dietary manipulation.

Quote:

Used in its early incarnations
during the Spanish Inquisition,53 waterboarding is described in U.S. government
documents as a technique which involves “binding the detainee to a bench with
his feet elevated above his head,” “immobilizing his head,” and “plac[ing] a cloth
over his mouth and nose while pouring water onto the cloth in a controlled manner.
Airflow is restricted for 20 to 40 seconds and the technique produces the
sensation of drowning and suffocation.”54 The United States prosecuted Japanese
interrogators for waterboarding U.S. prisoners during World War II.

Quote:

A second August 1, 2002, memorandum, also signed by
Bybee, authorized the CIA to use on its detainee Abu Zubaydah 10 specific interrogation
methods, including waterboarding, placing him in a “cramped confinement box
with an insect” in light of his apparent fear of insects, cramped confinement in a dark
space to restrict his movement, walling, stress positions, wall standing, sleep deprivation,
attention grasp, facial hold, and “facial slap (insult slap).

Quote:

[D]etainees were subjected
to various forms of ill-treatment during their detention in secret locations,
including suffocation by water poured over a cloth placed over the nose and mouth,
prolonged stress positions such as standing naked with arms held extended and
chained above the head, beatings by use of a collar held around the detainee’s
neck and used to forcefully bang the head and body against a wall, beating and
kicking, confinement in a box, prolonged nudity, sleep deprivation, exposure to
cold temperature, prolonged shackling, threats of ill-treatment, forced shaving, and
deprivation/restricted provision of solid food for up to one month.

Numerous experts have confirmed that—in addition to being
illegal—these techniques are ineffective in eliciting reliable information. FBI interrogator
Ali Soufan, who successfully elicited actionable intelligence from terrorist
suspects without the use of such methods, testified before congress that these
techniques “from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable,
and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda,” in addition to being
“un-American and harmful to our reputation and cause,” and failing to “produce
reliable intelligence,” in contrast to “rapport-building techniques [that] are far
more effective at eliciting such intelligence.”72 Soufan testified before congress
that his non-abusive interrogation of Abu Zubaydah yielded “important actionable
intelligence,” and that once the CIA started subjecting Zubaydah to harsh
interrogation methods, he “shut down and stopped talking” until Soufan was able
to re-engage him using non-abusive methods.73

Career military intelligence officer Col. Steven Kleinman similarly testified before congress
that “coercion is decidedly ineffective.”74 Former FBI special agent and counterterrorism
expert Jack Cloonan testified that he believed “based on a 27-year career
as a special agent and interviews with hundreds of subjects in custodial settings,
including members of al Qaeda, that the use of coercive interrogation techniques is
not effective,” and that “rapport-building” methods are more “effective, efficient and
reliable.”75 Matthew Alexander, who led the interrogations team that located Abu
Musab Al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, testified before congress
that in his experience “when interrogators used harsh methods that fit the definition
of abuse, in every instance, that method served only to harden the resolve of the
detainee and made them more resistant to interrogation.”76 In contrast, he observed,
“[d]etainees are more likely to cooperate when they see us live up to our principles.”

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Numerous experts have confirmed that—in addition to being illegal—these techniques are ineffective in eliciting reliable information. FBI interrogator Ali Soufan, who successfully elicited actionable intelligence from terrorist suspects without the use of such methods, testified before congress that these techniques “from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda,” in addition to being “un-American and harmful to our reputation and cause,” and failing to “produce reliable intelligence,” in contrast to “rapport-building techniques [that] are far more effective at eliciting such intelligence.”72 Soufan testified before congress that his non-abusive interrogation of Abu Zubaydah yielded “important actionable intelligence,” and that once the CIA started subjecting Zubaydah to harsh interrogation methods, he “shut down and stopped talking” until Soufan was able to re-engage him using non-abusive methods.73

Career military intelligence officer Col. Steven Kleinman similarly testified before congress that “coercion is decidedly ineffective.”74 Former FBI special agent and counterterrorism expert Jack Cloonan testified that he believed “based on a 27-year career as a special agent and interviews with hundreds of subjects in custodial settings, including members of al Qaeda, that the use of coercive interrogation techniques is not effective,” and that “rapport-building” methods are more “effective, efficient and reliable.”75 Matthew Alexander, who led the interrogations team that located Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, testified before congress that in his experience “when interrogators used harsh methods that fit the definition of abuse, in every instance, that method served only to harden the resolve of the detainee and made them more resistant to interrogation.”76 In contrast, he observed, “[d]etainees are more likely to cooperate when they see us live up to our principles.”

I'd like to believe all that, so I've decided that I will. However, I think torture is being defined awfully broadly in the section just above this one.

__________________
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth ..."
– Pope Saint John Paul II

__________________
Thanks, Trump for the civics lesson. We are learning so much about impeachment, the 25th Amendment, order of succession, nepotism, separation of powers, 1st Amendment, obstruction of justice, the emoluments clause, Logan Act, conflicts of interest, collusion, sanctions, oligarchs, money laundering and so much more.

__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson